Are we talking about keeping the Government out of religion or religion out of government

to some extent, both, and we are only talking about the federal government.

the federal government is not to interfere with the practice of religion, unless that practice interferes with the life and liberty of others. religion is to be kept out of government only in that there is to be no government church. there is nothing about prayer, content of speeches, etc. and religion in the constitution. whenever you have questions about the meaning of the constitution, you need only go back and look at the history and the writings. in this case, because of the huge political power of the church of england, the founders recognized that having A church as an arm of government was repressive to all religions.

the two reasons most people came to this country were economic and religious freedom. almost every colony was founded with inclusions of the religious beliefs of those founders. what's kind of funny is that the state sponsored churches of many of those colonies was the Anglican/Church of England! those state sponsored churches remained after the ratification of the constitution. a clear indication that the 1st amendment was designed to direct the feds and not the states.

sarge, i applaud your stand with jefferson. glad you saw the light.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

what's kind of funny is that the state sponsored churches of many of those colonies was the Anglican/Church of England! those state sponsored churches remained after the ratification of the constitution. a clear indication that the 1st amendment was designed to direct the feds and not the states.

After the ratification of the Constitution the Anglican/Church of England was no longer the state sponsored/mandated church of the Colonies. It was however still A church and some people still preferred it over others.

Logged

The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject.- Marcus Aurelius -

the Anglican church became the episcopal church in most places. Massachusetts and Connecticut kept their state sponsorship of church after the ratification. many of the early states had charters that directed worship, and behavior on Sundays. what these states did not do, is discriminate officially against those who chose to worship in ways other than those that the states founders had established.

there are remnants of the original religious devisions in the north east yet. knowing the history makes for a fascinating study of the present trends.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

For some reason I think you keep pointing to.... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion Indicating that congress of the USA can't but states can. The 14th says in Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This says if congress can't then the states can't.

Or have I just misinterpreted what you are saying?

Logged

:rainbowflower: Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak. :rainbowflower:

as an example: if the state of georga wanted to adopt as it's official church the baptist church, there is nothing in the constitution to keep them from doing that. if they were to prohibit other forms of worship, or discriminate against other forms of worship in their laws, that would go against the 14th.

on the other hand, the federal government could not adopt the baptist church as the official church. that is prohibited by the 1st.

states are also free to tax or not as they see fit. if they chose to support the baptist church with tax dollars, that would not go against the us constitution.

of course, the courts have mucked about in all of this and written opinions that are completely unconstitutional, but which now are the basis for all the separation crap.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

OK, SgtMaj. Going to help you out. Here is the main point of the letter:

Quote

It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek

after power and gain under the pretense of government and

religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their

order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order,

because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah

and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.

They were afraid that govt would meddle in the world of religion. Jefferson's 'Wall' was to keep the Federal Govt out of Religion. That is all. It doesn't keep religion out of govt, nor does it say anything about the States.

Here's an exact quote from his letter... note that it does say "state" not "federal government"...

Quote

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

Jefferson was speaking of the whole of the American people, and their legislature - meaning the Federal government. Trying to parse it any other way is the same 'logic' being used to misinterpret the Second Amendment. If enough people keep misinterpreting it the same way they keep hoping sooner or later they'll be right :roll:

sarge, you are plucking words but not understanding them in context. if you study the writings of the founders, TJ included, you'll understand why they did things the way they did them. you'll understand what those words mean.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

true. the problem comes with interpretation by the courts. the constitution grants a few rights, but primarily lists the limitations of the federal government. all other decisions are left to the states....or that was the plan. a state, for instance, could not reinstate slavery. things like the death penalty, marriage, etc. belong to the states. abortion should have been left entirely to the states, but the courts miraculously discovered a right to privacy that no one had previously found. it's like magic what they can do!! :evil:

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

Not buying it, sorry. Still gotta stick with Jefferson on this one. I think he said exactly what he meant.[/quote]

So to find the true meaning of the Bill of Rights you will reference a letter written fourteen years after they were ratified by a Founding Father who was in France when the Bill of Rights were written and approved?

to me, it seems silly to cast the constitution as some kind of "sacred text" that needs to be supported...it's simply a tool to support us...a tool that isn't always useful.

for instance, this same constitution, written by the same founding fathers apparently supported slavery ("all men are created equal"), didn't allow women to vote, etc.

the founding fathers _could_ have written christianity, christ, or any other religious references into the text...but they didn't. i doubt this was any sort of "PC" ommission.

it's much easier to focus on the text and debate what was meant than it is to tackle these issues on their own merrit...just as it's easier to quote bible verses than it is to discuss spirtuality directly.

clearly, many just and right actions have been taken in our history that are debateably unconstitutional. think of court decisions that allow interracial marriage, desegrigation of schools...these were not legislated, nor were they voted on "by the people". would we be better off if we waited until such issues were voted on?

it is relevant because the foundation of our country was built on the constitution and on the reasons for the way it was written. yes, there were things that needed to be changed. apparently the founders recognized that this might be necessary and there is an amendment process.

very often the courts have taken it upon themselves to make law rather than interpret it. making law is not the job of the courts.

if we and they do not understand our constitution, and legal processes, we can not use them, or protect them.

any structure is only as strong as it's foundation. it does not matter if it's a building, marriage, or country.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....